Quiz time

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am

George Galloway sets a challenging quiz for Guardian readers. Norm Geras has some additional bonus questions. So do I:

1. Who wrote this, about which newspaper?

“It carries on its shoulders all the unhappiness and disappointment of those who think they are clever but aren’t, who pride themselves on being able to think for themselves but have to be told what to think, who desperately need to see themselves as morally superior when life’s intellectual and social prizes pass them by, the social and emotional cripples who must learn to hide their rage at cruel fate behind the pretence of querying moral values. ______ has the magic property of making their ugliness a virtue, of allowing the nation’s Calibans a rose-tinted mirror before which they can mouth and grimace to their heart’s content, convinced they are the fairest of them all.”

2. How many newspapers is it true of?

UPDATE. The answers: 1) Auberon Waugh, about The Guardian, in 1995; 2) a lot.

UPDATE II. The rantings of DK Lillee (currently trolling from the Paddington end) are remarkably similar to those of Jack Robertson.

Posted by Tim B. on 03/22/2005 at 10:38 AM
    1. Being written by Galloway, and published in The Guardian, he must be thinking about The Daily Telegraph, or something like that. But it applies nicely to almost any newspaper, TV network and media in general. Even to most blogs – no offence intended.

      Posted by Pedro Oliveira on 03/22 at 11:29 AM • permalink


    1. 1.  That would be the New York Times.

      2.  That would be most of them.

      Posted by Mystery Meat on 03/22 at 11:36 AM • permalink


    1. The author?  Ward Churchill.

      Posted by Mystery Meat on 03/22 at 11:38 AM • permalink


    1. Any newspaper that sees itself as an independent guardian mirroring the public’s desires…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 03/22 at 11:47 AM • permalink


    1. Lets see, any of the Fairfax rags?

      Posted by swassociates on 03/22 at 12:49 PM • permalink


    1. Answer 1: A socialist/communist.
      Answer 2: Most news channels, whether print or not, but especially New York Times and Al-Guardian.

      Posted by jorgen on 03/22 at 01:52 PM • permalink


    1. Here’s my question:

      1a) Why is Saddam’s bag man accorded this sort of respect by a prominent news organization?

      1b) Does this mean Tariq Aziz is going to offered a position on the editorial staff?

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 03/22 at 02:47 PM • permalink


    1. *be*


      Posted by Spiny Norman on 03/22 at 02:48 PM • permalink


    1. A better question would be, “How many newspapers is this not true of?”

      You’d have a smaller set of answers to work with.

      Posted by wilde karrde on 03/22 at 03:02 PM • permalink


    1. George Orwell talking about the Grauniad?

      Posted by sebzig on 03/22 at 05:25 PM • permalink


    1. Odious, immoral steaming pile of hypocritical shit…. or George Galloway in shorthand. What a replusive Cu* t that man is, as he continues his makeover of a mass murderer… one wonders what attrocities would dent Galloway’s conscience … favourite wine indeed … urgh!

      Posted by Isumbras on 03/22 at 06:30 PM • permalink


    1. Isumbraswinders you can roll right down
      In case there’s a change in the weeeeaaather

      Sorry ‘bout that.  I agree totally

      Posted by jlc on 03/22 at 07:14 PM • permalink


    1. 2. How many newspapers is it true of?

      Considering that every bum-nugget of Grauniad idiocy receives an automatic, lazy re-print in Fairfax, that would include The garbAge and The Silly Moaning Hilmer.  But we knew that already.

      Posted by Craig Mc on 03/22 at 07:24 PM • permalink


    1. The Bulletin?

      Posted by DK Lillee on 03/22 at 07:43 PM • permalink


    1. Ok, I think we have established to which paper the comments most likely apply, now, which journo’s best fit the description?

      First vote for A dill Horan from the SMH

      Posted by Nic on 03/22 at 07:44 PM • permalink


    1. Peirs Akerman?

      Posted by DK Lillee on 03/22 at 07:48 PM • permalink


    1. I thought it was a description of Chris Sheils and Margo Kingston

      Posted by murph on 03/22 at 08:05 PM • permalink


    1. Well, ol’ Peirs certainlycarries on his shoulders a lot of unhappiness and disappointment. And he tells a lot of people what to think. He’s certainly “morally superior” to the idiots who don’t see things his way, and a lot of “intellectual and social prizes” have passed him by.

      I dunno who the nation’s Calibans are (caravan renting Talibans?), but I’m thinkin they’re not out in Macquarie Park stealing hub-caps.

      Could be wrong.

      Posted by DK Lillee on 03/22 at 08:17 PM • permalink


    1. Hey DK, you’re really shakin’ me outa my complacency. I’m starting to feel real bad ‘bout bein’ ‘ere.

      Where’d I put that mozzie spray…

      Posted by Hamish McFootpath on 03/22 at 09:48 PM • permalink


    1. Next to the mace?

      Posted by DK Lillee on 03/22 at 10:04 PM • permalink


    1. I notice that you didn’t place quotes around the word ‘idiots’.

      Posted by murph on 03/22 at 10:38 PM • permalink


    1. He musta missed that while he was congratulating himself for his cleverness.

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/22 at 10:54 PM • permalink


    1. Sortelli,

      s/h/it cant be too clever, ‘Peirs’ is actually spelt Piers

      Posted by Nic on 03/22 at 11:09 PM • permalink


    1. If you look in the States, you can exempt the Washington Times, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal..  and perhaps a couple I haven’t thought of.. but the definition certainly applies to all the rest of the U.S. papers.

      Posted by texasdave on 03/22 at 11:27 PM • permalink


    1. Oh, but he’s so GOSHDARN clever!  Tee hee!  He turned the post around and said “the Bulletin?”

      A very special boy, this one.

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/22 at 11:38 PM • permalink


    1. Chill out kids. Takin it all a bit serious, wot?

      Because, jeez, poor deluded former bastardised fat Bunter-esque pee-stained schoolboy Pears Akermanis can defend himself, should he feel the need, don’t you think?

      And jeepers, I’m not seein much discussion of the original post, it’s more about shooting the messenger of opinions you don’t agree with. C’moonnn kids, you’re better than that. Buck up, buckaroos! Tell us: which leftie bleeding heart Al Queda backin all-but-Twin-Tower-destroying-motherfucking newspaper is the original thing talking about, hm?

      And … discuss.

      Posted by DK Lillee on 03/23 at 12:01 AM • permalink


    1. It always comes down to this “shooting the messenger” bullshit.  It makes me wonder why you half-wits even try anymore.

      Do you go to bed at night proud of your ability to rub people the wrong way and get a terse reply?

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/23 at 12:43 AM • permalink


    1. Nah, proud’s the wrong word … … tryin to think … it’s more like … it’s like being in amongst a bunch of … I dunno, sorta frightened punters still hiding in fully functional Y2K bunkers getting their news from Rupert’s Bush-PR machine that’s sorta … I dunno, it seems that you guys reckon anything and EVERYTHING from Fairfax and the Guardian, or France, or New York, or wherever people don’t like the war is BAD, and anything outta the gob of Dubya is GOOD and true and he’s standing up for good christian values and goodness.

      I dunno, I just think that’s a bit too easy and y’all ought to consider that the world’s made of shades of grey. No?

      And nah … it doesn’t always come down to shooting the messenger … but it’d be nice to hear your opinions conveyed via balanced rounded argument, rather than just putting shit on the person, and sitting there safe in your assumptions of what’s right.

      Posted by DK Lillee on 03/23 at 12:57 AM • permalink


    1. Wow, I ask a question and I get a huge release of pent-up leftist angst.

      It’d be nice to hear your opinions conveyed via balanced argument instead of this poorly conveyed ad homenim attack on… uh… whatever it is that bothers you.

      Instead of putting shit on me and sitting safe in your assumptions of what’s right, why don’t you stop with all the projection? I’m sure it hurts inside.  Maybe it’s you?

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/23 at 01:07 AM • permalink


    1. Nah. Can’t be me. I had the test. Wasn’t me.

      Posted by DK Lillee on 03/23 at 01:16 AM • permalink


    1. dk thinks that all the posters here think the same. THATS seeing things in black and white. you oughta lighten up and consider that the world’s made of shades of grey. no? also please dont put crap on ‘hillbillies’ and ‘rednecks’- it makes you sound like the bigot you probably are.

      Posted by Deo Vindice on 03/23 at 01:18 AM • permalink


    1. DK – Really?  You’ve been having a little problem with the assumptions there.  Would you like me to read your last post back to you?

      I mean, I know it’s hard to be in the political minority, watching the world unfold in horrifyingly positive ways at the hands of your opponents despite all your convictions to the contrary.

      It’s tempting, when you see public opinion swing so hard against your beliefs over and over to play sour grapes and assume that the problem is with the public’s perception and not your own.

      Maybe you should knock it off.

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/23 at 01:24 AM • permalink


    1. DK, Sortelli is being his normal, gentleman-like self.  So in case you hadn’t noticed, you’re behaving like a self-righteous, narrow-minded, prejudiced prick, exactly the image you are trying to put on our shoulders.

      Nope, won’t work!  Your problems are your own to deal with.  I suggest therapy, counseling, and a long vacation away from a computer.  And follow the medication instructions to the letter—doctor knows best.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 03/23 at 01:24 AM • permalink


    1. Normal? Gentlemen-like?  I demand a retraction!

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/23 at 01:28 AM • permalink


    1. Just to prove how abnormal and ungentlemanly I am, I am doodling a crazy picture of a monkey here at my desk.  HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES????

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/23 at 01:34 AM • permalink


    1. Well, EXCCCUUUUUUUSSSSSSEEEEEEEE me, Sortelli.  And here I thought I was being kindly.  I retract my statement that you’re a gentleman.  Gentlemen accept compliments with dignity and a “Thank You”. Although I must have slipped up on the keyboard when I used the word “normal” in the same sentence.  God knows you ain’t normal.  I surely dropped the ball on that one.  Please forgive me.

      How about scanning the monkey doodle and posting it here?  Might look like DK.  Never can tell.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 03/23 at 01:51 AM • permalink


    1. Boys, boys, boys – re-laxxx, for fug’sake – you’re takin it all too serious. C’mon – chill. Siddown, have a coke and a smile – i mean, how bout them Nix? Or are they Nicks? Whatever, c’mon, hunker back in your bunkers, cos oh oh-ooh, somebody’s comin, possibly Jesus, and what’ll He think if you’re not hacking out your little diatribes against another invisible cyber-soldier, hm?

      Or … not. But c’mon boys, you’re carryin on like you’re winning some sorta culture war of right vs left, when really … how the fuck are you winning anything? You’re a pair of clowns spending too much time in front of a PC with opinions moulded by bigotry, and when they’re challenged you squawk like howler monkeys.

      Oh no, you’re not self-righteous or narrow-minded. No sir, no how, our son’s not gay.

      Posted by DK Lillee on 03/23 at 02:04 AM • permalink


    1. Sortelli on 03/23 at 12:41 AM gives us the good news:

      I mean, I know it’s hard to be in the political minority, watching the world unfold in horrifyingly positive ways at the hands of your opponents despite all your convictions to the contrary.

      Sortelli thinks that triggering a $50+ pb price of oil, installing a proto-Islamist and pro-Iranian regime and provoking a terroristic Suuni sub-state in the heart of Mesopotamia at the cost of US$300 bill & 10,000 US/100,000 Iraqi casualties is a “positive” development?
      I’d hate to see what he’d call “negative”.

      Posted by Jack on 03/23 at 02:15 AM • permalink


    1. In the interests of me getting enough sleep, I’ve banned the troll DK Lillee until further notice, which will probably be “never.”

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 03/23 at 02:18 AM • permalink


    1. It’s funny when they scream.

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/23 at 02:19 AM • permalink


    1. By the way. Jack? You’re on notice. Quit spouting your bullshit or I’ll ban you and everyone that looks like you.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 03/23 at 02:20 AM • permalink


    1. Jack wants to know my definition of “negative”.  I would call anyone who spends time feverishly punching at an imaginary calculator trying to balance “Iraq War=Failure” as an equation a “negative”.

      Especially when so much of their point rests on presuming Iraq will be “proto-Islamist” and “pro-Iranian” complete with a “terroristic Sunni sub-state” despite, you know, reality.

      But, you know, Jack Strocchi never succeeds to impress.

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/23 at 02:25 AM • permalink


    1. I have the same initials as Jack Strocchi! :O

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/23 at 02:27 AM • permalink


    1. Jack – I doubt that he does, but since almost none of the things you mentioned have or are likely to come to pass (10,000 US casualties?  Are things going so well now that you have to include injuries to try to boost the numbers?) we cannot tell.


      Posted by Pixy Misa on 03/23 at 02:29 AM • permalink


    1. I also have the same initials as Jeff S!

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/23 at 02:30 AM • permalink


    1. I have the same initials as Jack Strocchi! :O

      Well, as long as you don’t look like him, you should be okay.  Maybe you should wear a hat just to play it safe.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 03/23 at 02:31 AM • permalink


    1. I also have the same initials as Jeff S!

      How will we ever tell the three of you apart?!

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 03/23 at 02:31 AM • permalink


    1. Oh goodie!  A colorful hat, with bells.

      Wait, that probably would not distinguish us.

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/23 at 02:32 AM • permalink


    1. I do love that Jack has to whine about the price of oil now, though.  What’s he got now?  His “scientifically-defensible” Lancet study, and base appeals to greed and bigotry.  Because, you know, it’s all about oil and those dirty Iraqis cannot be trusted to make their own decisions (they are proto-Islamist, you know).

      Man, I am going to sleep good tonight.

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/23 at 02:36 AM • permalink


    1. The author of the quote is most likely an ex-Leftist since his antipathy is laced with considerable empathy towards despised former comrades including perhaps self. He is also, given the Shakespearian reference, likely to be British.
      So it is out of Malcolm Muggeridge, Paul Johnson, Bernard Levin or Theodore Dalrymple writing on any of the preceding decades in the Times or Spectator about the Guardian or New Statesman.
      My money is on Levin.

      Posted by Jack on 03/23 at 02:40 AM • permalink


    1. I’m going to have three shots at this one:

      1. Harry Heidelberg on Webdiary.

      2. Andrew Sullivan on the Guardian.

      3. Jeeves – to Bertie Wooster – on why the Guardian is unsound.

      Personally, I think it’s Harry. He’s got a slick turn of phrase that boy. Makes Sullivan and Woodhouse look like clunkers.

      Posted by Hanyu on 03/23 at 03:10 AM • permalink


    1. On the “10,000 US casualties” I would like to ask a serious question, one that has always been in my mind to ask but never quite got asked.

      Do you have to die to be considered a casualty? Or is an injury enough? Either way, the 10,000 still seems a little high – but if anyone knows the correct (Defense Dept., perhaps) definition of casualty, I would appreciate knowing.

      Posted by kisdm001 on 03/23 at 03:23 AM • permalink


    1. Today, $50+ pb oil. Tomorrow, the World!

      Posted by J. Peden on 03/23 at 03:23 AM • permalink


    1. Casualty does not mean a death only. Conceiveably, it might mean also a purple heart-type injury of any kind. But, I think it really means an injury which takes the soldier out of the war indefinitely, including death. Just my guess.

      Posted by J. Peden on 03/23 at 03:36 AM • permalink


    1. 1. My guess is Melanie Phillips on the Guardian. She should know – she used to write for it.

      2. The Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age.

      Posted by Adam B on 03/23 at 03:50 AM • permalink


    1. Andrea Harris, Administratrix 03/23 at 02:37 AM

      Quit spouting your bullshit or I’ll ban you and everyone that looks like you.

      Just out of curiosity, which part of Jack comment #38 contained incorrect information ie “bullshit”?

      Posted by Jack on 03/23 at 03:55 AM • permalink


    1. Speaking of the language of the left Carmel Lawrence is deeply concerned over the illegal detention of a non legal person.

      Carmel advises that citizens should be shocked by the Law despite her continual reference to the right that is embodied in the common law principle.

      A bit like the UNESCO boss lady saying that the UN wasnt about saving lives it was about upholding rights.


      Posted by rog2 on 03/23 at 04:01 AM • permalink


    1. Jack:

      *10,000 US casualties
      *10,000 Iraqi casualties
      *implying that the war was only about oil
      *implying that the Iraqi people are not better off now than they were under Saddam

      Need I go on?

      Posted by david on 03/23 at 04:14 AM • permalink


    1. Jack,

      You were sprouting an opinion you idiot – not “information”. We are disagreeing with you. Get it!!

      Posted by Adam B on 03/23 at 04:27 AM • permalink


    1. Sorry, that should read 100,000 Iraqi casualties…

      Posted by david on 03/23 at 04:46 AM • permalink


    1. look, tim lambert has 46 ‘pie charts’ and a 30,000 word essay backing up the lancet’s claim that 100,000 iraqis were killed in the iraq war. if there were’nt 100,000 killed why would he need to write 30,00 words to prove it eh? he KNOWS stuff.

      Posted by Deo Vindice on 03/23 at 05:28 AM • permalink


    1. Only about 20 of the 60 entries here actually try to answer the question.

      My answers:

      1. Boris Johnson on the Grauniad
      2. All of them: The Speccie AND The New Statesman, The Torygraph AND The Grauniad, The Silly Morning Hilmer/GarbAge AND The Oz/Terror/Hun, The NYT AND The National Review.

      Not that I want to be nihilistic.

      Posted by David Morgan on 03/23 at 05:40 AM • permalink


    1. that jack robertson sure has a mighty cute mouth. he looks good an soft too- juss how i like em.

      Posted by Deo Vindice on 03/23 at 07:07 AM • permalink


    1. Re#61: Bwa ha ha ha!  Good one, Rosceo.

      Posted by Sortelli on 03/23 at 07:56 AM • permalink


    1. People talk about casualties. You talked about casualties? Shame.

      NEWTON, Flight Lieutenant, WILLIAM ELLIS, V C, 250748. No. 22 Sqdn. Royal Australian Air Force. 29th March 1943. Age 23. Son of Charles Ellis Newton and Minnie Newton, of St. Kilda, Victoria. S. A. 4. The following details are given in the London Gazette of 15th October, 1943 : Flight Lieutenant Newton served with No. 22 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force, in New Guinea from May 1942 to March 1943. Throughout he displayed great courage and an iron determination to inflict the utmost damage on the enemy. His splendid offensive flying and fighting were attended with brilliant success. When leading an attack on March 16th, 1943, his aircraft was hit repeatedly. Nevertheless he held to his course and bombed his target from low level. The attack resulted in the destruction of many buildings and dumps, including two 40,000 gallon fuel installations. Although his aircraft was crippled Flight Lieutenant Newton managed to fly back to base and land successfully. Returning next day to an even more difficult target in the same locality he attacked with his usual courage and resolution. At the moment of scoring a hit his aircraft burst into flames. He deemed it his duty to keep in the air as long as he could, to take his crew as far as possible from the enemy. With great skill he brought his aircraft down on the water. Two members of the crew were able to extricate themselves and were seen swimming to shore, but the gallant pilot was missing. Without regard to his own safety, he had done all that man could do to prevent his crew falling into enemy hands. Flight Lieutenant Newton’s many examples of conspicuous bravery have rarely been equalled and will serve as a shining example to all who follow him.

      Forget talking about casualties until you understand what casualties means. And it doesn’t mean your pathetic left-wing spin on war.

      Casualties isn’t some high-five-slapping opportunity with your lefty university mates.

      It is your dead uncle whom you never knew, tho’ he was younger than you when he took a bullet. Or your aunt.

      Posted by ilibcc on 03/23 at 08:10 AM • permalink


    1. I’ve been away for a few days, and my favourite blog has become infested with apostate troll/scum.

      It’s time to get serious with these people.  I think they enjoy being insulted and banned.  I wish I could meet DK Lillee on the street one night and give him a real education.

      I really admire Jeff S on this site.

      My guesses are

      1/ P.P. McGuiness about

      2/ The Australian

      3/ All of them except Quadrant (does Quadrant count as a newspaper?)

      Posted by ssssabre on 03/23 at 08:50 AM • permalink


    1. Sortelli, if you get to wear a hat with bells on, I get to wear supertight spandex in eye searing colors.  Mustn’t confuse our public, y’know!

      And if that doesn’t work, people, just remember that I don’t doodle monkeys.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 03/23 at 08:58 AM • permalink


    1. “Casualty” covers all battlefield injuries, including missing in action.  I recall that the Lancet report (which Jack seems to read in bed with one hand) attempted to estimate deaths.

      So Jack got it wrong.  Again.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 03/23 at 09:03 AM • permalink


    1. re: Update II……

      And here I was thinking that our resident (but thankfully long absent) blogparrot, Miranda Divide, had gotten her GED, and moved to a slightly more educated level of insults.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 03/23 at 09:08 AM • permalink


    1. PS to Andrea:  Thanks for banning DK!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 03/23 at 09:08 AM • permalink


    1. I actually thought that DK Lillie dude was pretty funny–got that laguage/spelling/accent thing down pretty good!

      Granted a drooling troll way off topic, psychological projection, and empty arguments, but other than that…

      What is it with the left that thinks the mere repetion of spin turns an assertion into fact?

      Posted by Forbes on 03/23 at 10:31 AM • permalink


    1. The only thing missing in Jack Robertson’s resume is the great Australian novel. You have one in you, right, Jack? I bet it’s about this knockabout guy who’s had a shit load of jobs, worked all over Australia, autodidact, school of life, smarter than anyone else he’s ever met, and a shit hot pool player to boot.

      You better get on with it, mate. The years are rolling in. Say, that’d be a good name for the book. Or, It Wan’t Until I Wrote for Webdiary That I Realised I’d Hit Rock Bottom.

      Keep it up, Jack. Yer gonna be a star one day.

      Posted by Hanyu on 03/23 at 10:43 AM • permalink


    1. His own ramblings not getting noticed. They all end up resorting to popping in here to sponge some attention.

      I can just see him now; banned but still coming back to see what we’re saying about him. Left hand on penis, right hand on mouse; restless in his seat due to a full bowell which he steadfastly refuses to evacuate; leaning into the screen with his tongue flicking at little flecks of spittle at the corners of his mouth. His eyes wide with anticipation.

      Hey, I’ve got him all figured out!

      Posted by Hamish McFootpath on 03/23 at 05:13 PM • permalink


    1. Jack Robertson has worked as a soldier, a helicopter pilot, a deckhand, a marine engineer, a language teacher, a marketing manager, a shift-hand, a barman, a farmhand, a university administrator, an envelope stuffer, a retail salesman, an ex-polly’s bag-handler and a builder’s labourer. His hobbies include drawing, jazz piano and swimming.

      They forgot bullshit artist

      Posted by murph on 03/23 at 05:43 PM • permalink


  1. And he did all those inside his mind! The man’s a marvel.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 03/23 at 07:14 PM • permalink